Guest Post: Anything The Government Gives You, The Government Can Take Away

A majority of doctors support measures to deny treatment to smokers and the obese, according to a survey that has sparked a row over the NHS‘s growing use of “lifestyle rationing”.

Some 54% of doctors who took part said the NHS should have the right to withhold non-emergency treatment from patients who do not lose weight or stop smoking. Some medics believe unhealthy behaviour can make procedures less likely to work, and that the service is not obliged to devote scarce resources to them.

And that’s the trouble with services and institutions run from the taxpayer’s purse, administered by centralists and bureaucrats. It becomes a carrot or a stick for interventionists to intervene in your life. Its delivery depends on your compliance with the diktats and whims of the democracy, or of bureaucrats. Your standard of living becomes a bargaining chip. Don’t conform? You might be deemed unworthy of hospital treatment.

It seems innocuous to promise all manner of services in exchange for taxes. Citizens may welcome the convenience, the lower overheads, the economies of scale. They may welcome a freebie, and the chance to enjoy the fruits of someone else’s labour. They may feel entitled to it.

Many words have been spent on the problems of dependency; that rather than working for an honest living, the poor may be sucked into a vortex of entitlement, to such an extent that they lose the desire to produce. A tax-sucking multi-generational underclass can develop. Individuals can live entirely workless lives, enjoying a semi-comfortable existence on the teat of the taxpayer, enjoying the fruits — financial handouts, free education, free healthcare, a free home — of social engineers who believe that every problem under the sun can be remedied by government largesse and throwing money at problems. And who can blame them? Humans have sought out free lunches for as long as there have been humans.

Welfare dependency is generally assumed to be viewed negatively in the corridors of power. After all, broad welfare programs mean greater spending, and that very often means great debt. And why would a government want to be in debt? Surely governments would prefer it if more of the population was working and productive and paying taxes?

But it is easier to promote behaviour desired by the state when a population lives on state handouts. And for states that might want to influence the behaviour of their citizens — their resource consumption, their carbon footprint, their moral and ethical beliefs, or their attitude toward the state — this could be an attractive proposition. It might cost a lot to run a welfare system, but it brings a lot of power to influence citizens.

And increasingly throughout the Western world, citizens are becoming dependent on the state for their standard of living. In the UK, 92% of people are dependent on the socialist NHS for healthcare. 46 million Americans receive food stamps. That gives states a lot of leverage to influence behaviour. First it may be used in a (relatively sensible) attempt to curtail smoking and obesity. Beyond that, the sky is the limit. Perhaps doctors or bureaucrats may someday suggest withholding treatment or dole money from those who exceed their personal carbon or meat consumption quota? A tyrant could even withhold welfare from those who do not pledge their undying allegiance or military service to a regime or ideology (it happened many times last century). An underclass of rough and hungry welfare recipients is a fertile recruiting ground for military and paramilitary organisations (like the TSA).

With the wide expansion of welfare comes a lot of power, and the potential for the abuse of power. Citizens looking for a free lunch or an easier world should be careful what they wish for. Welfare recipients take note: you depend on government for your standard of living, you open yourself up to losing your liberty.

I recently heard a certain senator on CNBC suggest an upper tier of health care for them and the elite and everyone else gets the shitter...i want what they got even if i can't afford 12 dollar beers at the blackhawks games

Although I fully agree with the main point, this article conveniently sidesteps the fact that so-called socialist countries in Western Europe achieve better patient outcomes while spending roughly half of what the US does per capita on healthcare.

*HALF* of US healthcare spending, at least, is wasteful and inefficient.

Sure, spending too much is bad, but spending too much and stupidly to boot is unforgivable.

It should be an internationally agreed upon policy, No nuclear missiles and aircraft delivered nuclear bombs be pre-programed with any specific targets. The USA can deliver nuclear missiles anywhere on the planet in one hour.

Yes Dr Benway but that's not the point of the article is it? The article highlights the means by which govt can induce hardship on the populace, create more welfare to make citizens dependent and then use it to ultimately control them.

To be brutally frank, in this case, success rates are largely irrelevent...

The author has taken an alarmist headline and failed to read the article more carefully. Perhaps the most important statistic is that the 593 Doctors were "self selected". Try taking a survey of ZH readers who think the US economy is fucked. You're starting with a strongly biased sample. Anyway, so having just cherry picked the headline the author makes no mention of the following points in the same Guardian article in which every relevant body is against the proposed idea.

Things omitted are: (my emphasis)

1. 593 (54%) of the 1,096 doctors who took part in the SELF-SELECTING SURVEY answered yes when asked: "Should the NHS be allowed to refuse non-emergency treatments to patients unless they lose weight or stop smoking?"

2. Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said the survey findings and trend towards "lifestyle rationing" was "very disturbing".

She said: "It's the deserving and undeserving sick idea. The NHS should deliver care according to need. There was no medical justification for such restrictions on smokers, as giving up nicotine would not necessarily enhance an operation's chances of success. Clearly, giving up smoking is a good thing. But blackmailing people by telling them that they have to give up isn't what doctors should be doing.". Doctors should not back such bans unless there was "overwhelming evidence" that stopping smoking reduces the patient's risk of suffering complications or dying, she said.

3. The Royal College of Physicians, which represents hospital doctors, said it opposed the practice. "Lifestyle rationing is creeping into the NHS. There are reported examples where treatments have been restricted by PCTs and we wouldn't agree with that," said Professor John Saunders, chair of the college's ethics committees.

4. The Department of Health took a similar stance. "There is no excuse to deny care on the basis of arbitrary blanket bans — the individual needs of patients must be taken into account," said a spokeswoman.

5. Dr Mark Porter, chairman of the British Medical Association's consultants committee, blasted treatment bans as "wholly unacceptable". But he added: "There are occasions where a doctor may advise an obese person to lose weight before surgery can safely go ahead. This is a clinical rather than a rationing decision."

The fact that healthcare (indeed all public) spending has been largely funded by debt in Europe is utterly irrelevant here. On a per capita basis, Americans spend roughly twice that of Western Europeans for healthcare, how that money is raised is not what we are discussing.

Americans have a disastrously ponzified and inefficient healthcare system, and as a result Americans pay twice as much as Western Europeans while not achieving superior patient outcomes. Monopolistic cleptocratic insurance industry and litigation culture are two major culprits.

Americans spend about 14% of GDP in health care, while Britons, with their "socialist" NHS spend a bit over 7% with better outcomes (for example, infant mortality is greater in the US).

While there is a case to be made about the problems that come with state dependency (not just via social security, but also the dependency on subsidies and state guarantees of many companies), pointing at the one thing the state does which has huge proven efficiencies versus comparative private systems (i.e. healthcare costs half as much in the UK as in the US) is a self-defeating argument.

The article makes an argument which only works with people that are ignorant on how that system works.

The really ridiculous bit of the article is that those people who might be denied treatment can simply take health insurance (just like in the US) and have access to private healthcare: it's still cheaper here in the UK than in the US. In other words, people are complaining because they might be denied access to the "socialist" NHS and instead be forced to go to the "capitalist" system of private healthcare like in the US. So the argument made is senseless: the "socialist" NHS is worse and private healthcare is best because people complain that might be forced out of the NHS and have to use private healthcare (if the later is so great, people should be happy about it).

Frankly if the author of the article had managed to ditch his McCartist brainwashing and FOX-News-fueled ignorant small-mindedness, he could've pointed out at the true problems with social security and made a much stronger argument.

From what I have read, (and correct me if I am wrong), that is just about the ONLY statistic you can quote to support your position. And, as I have read, there are cultural and social reasons for that, not medical.

But please, as I say, do enlighten me. Here in Germany, I notice that our doctors are VERY good at emergency medical care (like a heart attack), but not so good at preventative care. While I lived the the US, my family doctor was very thorough at identifying anything that looked suspicious, getting me tested, and prescribing something (meds or therapy) to keep the problem from getting worse. She also was quite careful to take plenty of time to explain the condition to me, the dangers, and best ways to deal with it. I am lucky if my German doctor explains anything to me.

What looked like conscientious care to you was actually defensive overtreatment. Because of the legal environment in the US, doctors are much more likely to initiate unnecessary tests and treatments. This is not only costly but bad for patient health. People tend to think that more is better when it comes to healthcare but that is certainly not true.

Healthcare is not a right. Where does it state in the Constitution that it is?
The pursuit of healthcare is, just like the pursuit of happiness is.
If an individual wants to spend a lot on healthcare, that's his right. No one should be forced to pay for someone else's health care.

The vast money they save on eliminating the so-called "wasteful spending" on a bare-bones safety net will be paid out in private security costs, so they can sit in their homes unmolested, let their children, play in the yard, get back and forth to work, etc...

What's amusing is that many of the libertarian rank and file that I know are upper middle income at best.

They don't seem to understand that gated-communities, private patrols, trained security drivers etc...are very expensive and in their own way a "safety tax."

As former law enforcement, I will be happy to contract with them...and bleed them green in the process.

Of course to keep costs as low as I can, I will have to hire the kind of people who would prefer to just "do" them.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Yes. General (Everyone- rich,poor,middle) welfare. Doesn't say anything about each individuals medical care. Then it discusses liberty and the ability to secure Posterity.

Exactly. nothing about govt imposed medical care or wages for not working. When did the program we call "Welfare" come about? Maybe someone thought that name could be used to support their agenda later...

Stick around, my friend. Our unproductive, third-world immigrants are contributing virtually nothing into the system, while taking out of it hand-over-fist. It is small wonder that the system is looking for ways to cut costs, e.g., not treating smokers or the obese (not that I am completely in disagreement with that philosophy), but soon, the overwhelmingly white European aged. People had better drop those ciggies and that extra mug of Bier and hit the Alpine trails if they want any kind of decent quality-of-life in their later years. The government will NOT be there for them.

"Europe’s survival rates are lower than in the US, where 66.3 per cent of men and 62.9 per cent of women survive for five years, compared with 47.3 per cent of European men and 55.8 per cent of women."

Yeah, its called socialism. Statism for those that will drone on about the "ism" meme.

If govt is responsible for your health and wellbeing, It has a right to tell you how to live. Fuck the Constitution. It's such an old document; written by evil white slaveholding rich men. Blah blah occupy blah...

Bottom line- if we don't get rid of this obamacare abomination we are ALL fucked. Well, we who are not in the ruling class are fucked.

Wake up folks! We are the only nation with a constitution dedicated to limited govt. If we throw it out, it's gonna be a long time before we get a bunch of smart guys in a room to write another one.

blame that on the private healthcare providers and plaintiffs bar for unduly infuenceing government.

this article ignores the WHOLE FUCKING DEBATE ABOUT HEALTHCARE.

I'm not advocating one way or another because there are subtleties here. the general point in taken about government largess being a problem of dependency at the individual level.

BUT PLEASE -----address the issue of private tyranny here. doctors cannot just sell their services because there is a whole INSURANCE INDUSTRY WORKING AGAINST THEM. DO YOU REALIZE THAT ALMOST NO ONE STARTS THEIR OWN PRIVATE CLINIC ANYMORE???????????HELLLLLLOOOOOOOO?

YEA, PRIVATE TYRANNY OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES IS AS MUCH TO BLAME HERE FOR UNAFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE, SUBSIDIZING THE CORN SYRUP INDUSTRY, AND ALL OTHER SORTS OF PRIVATE LOBBYING THAT HAS CORRUPTED THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THERE IS A PUBLIC INTEREST IN AFFORDEABLE MEDICINE. sort of sad to talk about this from a one sided perspective here. there is definitely a balance here. and what you are focussing on , the 'elite' bearacracies and politicians, is just like explaining the story from the one side without talking about how these so called 'elites' are very much serving the narrow interests of a privatised industry that has edged out ALL capitalist competition at the price level of the individual providers, doctors themselves. you want a free market? it's not even possible with the convoluted lobbying and financial strucutues in place that have operated to seal off any public political choice.

DONT FORGET THAT PRIVATE TYRANNY IS THE PRIMARY PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE WORKED ON. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE 'GOVERNMENT' AS IF THEY EXIST IN A VACCUM. PLEASE!

Maybe people arean't aware that your much lauded non-government private insurer in the US can choose to not to cover or treat you for any variety of illnesses once they decide they are "pre-exisiting conditions" after their voodoo practitions apply creative post-underwriting criteria.

Worst case--No coverage for you. You die.

Best case--Initially covered and treated...then they decide not to pay some or all of the bill and you get to go Medical 7 in bankruptcy court...and then you just wish you were dead.

Don't be an idiot. It doesn't work that way with homeowners or auto insurance and you know it...but you are the perfect shill, now aren't you?

Some witchdoctor underwirter can decide you had a "pre-existing" condition after your first visit to the ER or first admission for an ailment you never knew you had or ever had a problem with before you presented yourself for treatment.

I had a nephew with a kidney ailment who was working and insured. The insurance underwriters claimed it was a congenital defect and therefor a "pre-existing" condition. His doctor never indicated that to my nephew or in the medical records.

My nephew never had a problem with it until his first trip to the ER...as a child, teenager or young adult.

He fought the ins. co. as did the doctor and the hospital.

He started out life in his late-20s with a Medical 7 Bankruptcy.

Hope it happens to you. You may "get it" at that pont. Some people have to learn the hard way.

Sounds like your nephew had a "pre-existing condition" dipshit. If the condition is known prior, it can not be Insured against. Insurance is mitigating potential and unknown risk. If you are covering a known condition it is NOT insurance. SHill.

If you think someone else(me, if you want govt health insurance) should pay for your nephew, just say so. Too bad about his condition, it is most unfortunate and you have my sympathy, but I do not feel it is my responsibility. Further more; I don't want my Insurance company to pay his bills if they knew he had the condition beforehand. Shill. I have bills and expenses as well. If you are concerned, why don't you help him pay for his medical bills. Shill?

If this "not covering pre-existing conditions meme" is the whole point of govt healthcare, why not just get a govt program to help people with pre-existing conditions and leave the rest of us alone?

Well, my brother's a doctor and he recently treated me to a profanity-laced tirade about the $200k in federal income taxes he just had to pay and he could give a flying fuck about smokers and fatasses (he is both).

If you are working and paying taxes in America, you're a serf. There's no question about it. The oligarchs do neither, and they've accomplished the great trick of forcing half the serfs to pay for the section 8, food stamps, healthcare, and welfare of the other half.

Yes, I understand the point of the post and I agree completely with the Gerald Ford quote (although Ford was just another statist). I'm giving you a personal take on it. Most doctors have busted their ass to get where they are, they know something that the vast majority of the population cannot relate to and yet, they find themselves pawns in a collectiveist power grab by the politboro. Don't blame the doctors, most who enjoy what they do and whould like, as most of us would, to be left alone.

Ok it's simple, people who smoke and are overweight and denied medical assistance should have the option of opting out of paying taxes......they then could then avoid socialized healthcare and take out private medical insurance.

"These strong opinions for and against smoking were not supported by much evidence either way until 1950 when Richard Doll and Bradford Hill showed that smokers seemed more likely to develop lung cancer.

A campaign was begun to limit smoking. But Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the greatest statistician of the 20th century, had noticed a bizarre anomaly in their results. Doll and Hill had asked their subjects if they inhaled. Fisher showed that men who inhaled were significantly less likely to develop lung cancer than non-inhalers.

Doll and Hill decided to follow their preliminary work with a much larger and protracted study. British doctors were asked to take part as subjects. 40.000 volunteered and 20,000 refused. The relative health of smokers, nonsmokers and particularly ex-smokers would be compared over the course of future years. In this trial smokers would no longer be asked whether they inhaled, in spite of the earlier result. Fisher commented: "I suppose the subject of inhaling had become distasteful to the research workers, and they just wanted to hear as little about inhaling as possible".

And: "Should not these workers have let the world know not only that they had discovered the cause of lung cancer (cigarettes) but also that they had discovered the means of its prevention (inhaling cigarette smoke)?"

"How had the MRC [Medical Research Council] the heart to withhold this information from the thousands who would otherwise die of lung cancer?"

Actually the funny bit is that the overweight tend to be the poorest and least educated, which are often then ones that live on the dole, who don't actually pay any taxes.

You see, things like good quality fresh vegetables, fruits, meat and fish are more expensive than carb-heavy foods (rice, potatoes) or processed foods (made with the local equivalent of pink slime), both of which make you fat. Also nowadays it's the middle class and above that worry more about keeping fit.

This also partially applies to smoking.

That said, I agree with your idea - if you're denied access to the NHS you should not have to pay for it.

here in the US some docs are quite liberal...they tend to be the ones who would prefer an extra rectal exam by the TSA 'just to be sure it is safe'. Conservative docs seem to be a bit more libertarian but some are a tad autocratic and I'm afraid would approve of such measures.

The problem is of course that the Feds are unable to control the natural impulses of all politicians...to pass more laws and insert themselves in our lives...in every way. They have taken over medicine (with Obamacare it will be the ENTIRE system) only to discover ...ooops ...we can't pay for all we promised.

Instead of being pissed, the people roll over for higher taxes when they should be angry that they were lied to about the costs originally.

Exactly. Health "insurance", if applied to your automobile, would cover gasoline, tires, oil changes, AND be sold to you by Exxon Mobil. It's not friggin insurance if it covers something you regularly use.

further; if i rely on someone else to make payment on something I use everyday, the cost will be higher because the person making the payments has expenses too.

Example: I drink coffee every day. Lets just assume for the argument that I buy this at a store.

The coffee costs $1. Since I don't like spending money on the coffee, I buy coffee insurance. The Insurance company charges the equivalent of $.50 per day. They are taking the risk that not everyone buys coffee every day.

Well, with my coffee insurance you can bet your ass I'm gonna buy coffee every day! I spend $.50 cents a day to get "free" coffee! I'm gonna get my money's worth! Hell, I'm gonna get two or three cups of coffee now! I't's Free!

Everyone else thinks this way too.

The Coffee Store sees coffee is selling like never before! Holy Crap! Increased overhead to maintain increased demand! Now their going to charge more. Since the customer insn't paying, they start charging the insurance company $2 per cup. The insurance company doesn't care they will just increase premiums. Now they start increasing premiums. First to $.75 cents a day. I'm thinking, "damn insurance company raising rates!" I'm getting four cups a day now! I'll show them. I'm not getting a lid on my cup either, if it spills the insurance company will pay for it!

Now I'm drinking more coffee everyday. The Coffee Store is charging even more per cup. The evil insurance company just raised my rates for the fifth time!!!!! And they put a limit on the amount of cups I can get.

Forget your doctor, and know thy cook and thy ingredients. If you eat meat from cannibalistic tortured animals, and grain laced with GMO taint, expect to have some side effects. Hell, spray a little Roundup in there while your at it, then run to the doctor for another poison pill. Snakeoil for snakeoil, their hungry, but their belly's full.

Oh right. I guess the only way to receive welfare - to depend on the government's largesse with no strings attached - is to be deemed "too big to fail."

In truth, there are generations that subsist on the government teat just as there are those who genuinely need to rely on the social safety net for a period in their life when things get seriously shitty for them and they need a little help to get back on the rails.

At at time when the upper layer of the financial elite are sucking as much of the cream to the top for themselves as they can possibly manage, we need to be careful not to lose our humanity.

Welfare recipients are not the only ones losing their liberty. It is lost to us all. We will never get it back as long as we cut ourselves off from each other with this divisive sort of attitude. Welfare recipients are not the enemy of a healthy economy. They are a symptom of a sick one.

In my opinion about 50% of hospitalizations are due directly or indirectly to personal choice issues. Obesity, alcoholism, diabetes, drug use, not wearing seat belts, smoking, never getting exercise, eating shitty food, never seeing a dentist or doctor, having bad relationships etc. If people don't want to take care of themselves, why should I have to pay for them?

Well if your opinion (I'm guessing you're not a healthcare professional) is correct then 50% of your fellow citizens must just be "unlucky" to die from one of the top ten causes of death in the US. (OK you can ignore suicide, the mentally ill just have themselves to blame /s)

The states got all that money from the tobacco companies to meet the "health" hazard that smokers pose to the system. Remember the litigation of the 90's? They even got them to pay an on going fee to anti-tobacco smoke free crap, so they can put the stupid commercials on TV. I have been watching the frog dissection commercial all day.

So what that f**ck is their problem now? Just do another useless lottery or fast five or whatever scratch card scheme bs.

Healthcare might actually be more affordable if people paid for their own instead of assuming that some faceless "they" were taking care of it. Single-payer is the biggest fraud foisted upon the masses in our lifetime.

I smoke. Quit for 12 years once. You know something, I've had healthy friends die already.

My cardilogist recommended I smoke as my blood presure is halfway normal when I do. "You didn't hear it from me, but smoking will kill you, if you don't your ticker will get you first." That was thirty years ago.

I don't want anyone to pay for my "health" care. I just want the opportunity to pay myself, a reasonable price for a reasonable sevice. If I can't get that I'll do without.

The few times I have been injured and saw a doctor, I paid for it.

They should just shut down government for awhile, we may all be better off.

What it is is this sponge that has suds full of peace and contentment. Totally cutting edge product. Can you imagine your wife coming home from Walmart after a hards day work and you, with your sponge, waiting to give her the peace she deserves? To the moon I tell ya

You are one ignorant moron. Your fellow moron you are quoting is as qualified in medicine as a premature baby. Using his logic could also show that because 10% of car accidents are caused by drunk drivers that sober drivers are more dangerous because they cause 90% of car accidents.

BUPA is the leading private health insurer in the UK. Here's their take on the causes of lung cancer:

"Smoking is the major cause of lung cancer, causing around 9 in 10 lung cancers. Passive or second-hand smoking (breathing in other peoples smoke is also linked to lung cancer."

Well here in Canada my doc already told me that I have to stop reading Zerohedge. He says it's bad for my heart. I pleaded, but he wasn't having any of it. So sorry guys, this is about it for me here. I may be able to find a proxy server so I can keep informed but between Canada's health service and the America's NSA I am afraid there are not many other choices for me.

Governments are accustomed to owning indivuduals. Join the US Military, you become government property. Once public funds are used for your health, you become the custodian of your body as government property.

Socialized medicine is all about government owning your body, if not your soul.

What do people expect??? When you deal with the devil your ass is gonna get burnt sooner or later. IF people don't understand the government is the devil they need a lesson. What better lesson than denial of healthcare.

The really scary thing is if government forces you to buy/use the government service (healthcare, etc.) and then restricts it. The government will generally never ever betray the class it has made dependent.

The government taxes the hell out of you for public education, but in order for your kids to get a REAL education you have to send them to a private school or tutor them yourself.

Eventually, health care will be the same way or worse. In order to get the real life saving stuff you'll have to pay out of pocket or with extended coverage. Most people won't be able to afford it because they'll already be taxed to the max.

Public education isn't for your kids anyway. It's for the society at large. It's always nice to have a large percentage of the population who can at least read and write.

That way, when you're at Denny's, the waitzombie can write down your order. And your mechanic can give you a written estimate. And your carpenter can figure out how high to mount the manacles in your dungeon.

But you still won't be able to read that scrawl that your doctor wrote on the prescription.

Besides, if we didn't have compulsory schooling, the little bastards would be loose all day spray painting your car. At least with the modern day care system, they're mostly in one place where a SWAT team can deal with them if necessary.

Healthcare is NOT a right. It used to be a privilege here in Canada, and it used to be so in the US I believe under EMTALA. People have to pay for everything else in life unless the government "provides" some sort of access to it, eg. food stamps. However, if you CHOOSE to drink yourself shitfaced, smoke cigs or dope, eat shit food and eat out all the time, not keep fit, and lead a slovenly or higher risk lifestyle, then be prepared to pay for it, cause why should anyone clean up someone's else's mess or results of shitty habits. Not my fault and I'll take care of myself and save my money to look after myself if need be.

The only rights we have (enshrined in the constitution or not) are the right to be free and to be alive. No one (including government) should be allowed to take that right away from you, except where you've taken someone else's rights away first.

Driving, healthcare, iPads, cellphones, education are a privileges. It is something we should strive towards and work towards (and obtain through the free market), but it is not a right and should not be enforced at the barrel of a gun.

The problem is people equate all 'privileges' as those, and ONLY, those provided by the government, but forget that things like having candy is a privilege. It need not be provided by the government, but it is privilege to be able to afford and eat candy vs bread alone. There is no RIGHT to candy/cars/ipads/SNAP/healthcare.

What you're talking about is personal responsibility, unfortunately people prefer that government take responsibility, then they can blame government for unemployment, their personal debt etc. Let us not forget, the government only exists because we allow ourselves to be subject to it. Unfortunately too many people are a sleep and not responsible enough to vote out the status quo, and thus the circle continues.

You're exactly right, the death of personal responsibility has occurred principally over the last 4 decades. What we have now is a population who play the poor me 'victim'. Always looking for a handout, or to shift the blame, or not recognize they got themselves into their 'god' awful mess. It's no different than if one of your kids completely destroy their room and turn around to you and say "I know I messed it up, but can you clean it up for me". However, these people are all the way up into their 70's and even 80's sometimes. Life has been far too easy, and most importantly I remember hearing as a kid that life isn't fair. Well holy shit, isn't that a revelation. Healthcare especially should NOT be charity unless someone wants to provide it as such. People who bitch about having to pay for healthcare are oftentimes the same ones who have no problem buying a Lexus or a Mercedes SUV and plugging that bitch full of gas and than complaining it's gonna cost them when they stuff their face with McDonald's or Starbucks almost everyday, which they choose to spend money on, and then say what the hell is this, you mean my healthcare is also gonna cost me something. I'll tell you it makes me sick, and I deal with it everyday.

The only rights we have (enshrined in the constitution or not) are the right to be free and to be alive. No one (including government) should be allowed to take that right away from you, except where you've taken someone else's rights away first.

But the government wants what's best for you, even if you disagree. They Love You!

Perhaps, instead of taking it out on smokers, fatsos and drinkers, it might be better to tax even more, alcohol and cigarettes as well as any foods with more than a certain fat, sugar or salt content per 100 gr. Allocate the additional revenue to the health system.

Alternatively, issue defect notices to us fatsos and subject us to compulsory laps of the local park.

The bottom line is however, when the government picks up the tab for unhealthy living, people will always take less responsibility for their health. They will also take less responsibility for their driving and retirement.

You get no treatment unless you agree to have a vaccine (could be a flu shot) with an H5N1 pandemic activation date of 1/1/2013. Compliments of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And if you're still alive a month after that they're going to come by and shoot you--and your dog. Cats they don't care about.

Agree 1000% As someone who has not found the need to seek medical help in over a decade (and has made the sacrifices to upkeep fitness), these dead bodies walking are raising demand, and thusly price, on my (probably inevitable) meet and greet with a surgeon or general physician at some point in my future. It's bad enough that stupid people make mistakes that cost them their lives; why the need to expense everyone else?

many serious diseases are NOT life choice problems...they are BAD LUCK! INsurance should at least cover those. Cancer (most) rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, infectious diseases, type 1 diabetes, pulmonary fibrosis, lupus, ALS. I'm old and probably could not finish the list before I croak but you get the idea.

I was at a medical meeting this weekend. I don't think the elite can make a break for it yet...there is too much we are close to being able to fix...if they bolt now it will be lost for hundreds of years. If they have any brains they will keep the medical research system going. Another 30 years and I'm betting we are close to finguring this human being thingy out.

True that many states of illness or disease are epigenetically inherited, however, they can be influenced heavily by both our lifestyles and what we choose to consume. Cancer by far is almost 70-80 percent lifestyle choices over mutliple decades for many people. The others not so much, but diabetes was almost virtually unheard of 100 years ago until mass sugar consumption took centre stage.

And no sorry to burst the myth of their going to figure it all out. Unfortunately the popular medical system of the day and much of the medical based research focuses primarily on symptoms not causes. And even if they knew the causes they lack the artillery and means to reasonably correct it. Medical research is great and has fostered a foremost understanding of human and mammalian bodily function but the means to deal with complex diseases which contain multiple non-linear causes has escaped the capacity of the system to respond in any serious manner, and will not in the future. Because they are looking in the wrong direction. You cannot correct a distinct biochemic organism with foreign toxicological products and expect to restore a homeostatic equilibrium. The system is a farce for chronic conditions and is and was only designed to handle short term traumatic or acute situations. The sooner the system is abandoned on treatment on that front and people take much better care of themselves and yes perhaps utilize systems that enhance epigenetic resistance than and only than will some normalcy return to the health of the majority of the human race. Until then were getting closer to really fucked every day.

True that many states of illness or disease are epigenetically inherited

Not true at all. There's not a shred of proof that diseases are caused by "bad genes" or anything like that. Please, do your homework.

however, they can be influenced heavily by both our lifestyles and what we choose to consume. Cancer by far is almost 70-80 percent lifestyle choices over mutliple decades for many people.

Diseases can certainly be influenced by lifestyle, but it has nothing to do with consumption. Cancer is influenced by lifestyle: a life style of believing the LIES that are spewed by the medical establishment (that smoking causes lung cancer, for example), while disbelieving that it has everything to do with the human psyche.

The others not so much, but diabetes was almost virtually unheard of 100 years ago until mass sugar consumption took centre stage.

No one has ever gotten diabetes because of the food they ate, whether it is sugary foods or otherwise, it makes no difference. Diabetes is caused by a traumatized psyche, as are all other diseases.

And no sorry to burst the myth of their going to figure it all out. Unfortunately the popular medical system of the day and much of the medical based research focuses primarily on symptoms not causes.

Well I agree 100%. Though the reason they'll never figure it out is because all diseases are psychosomatic.

Wow, well I'm not sure if science used to be your first subject, let's say in the 1920's but things have progressed since then. Here's some scientific food for you to ingest. Obviously from your it's all 'psychosomatic' or mind-body new age touchy feely mentality you won't probably register this in your head. Not my problem, but nature cares little if you accept it or not.

It seems for you education is a must, so here's a couple hints for ya.

I'd ignore Mr mophead shit for brains. He clearly bypassed education and was not born with common sense. He's also easily influnced by people who suggest that his own smoking, obesity and bad diet won't harm him.

Fuck Obamacare. I won't subsidize you sick old fat fucks while I'm young and healthy and don't need health care.

Suck my fucking dick.

If the supreme court upholds Obama Care I am leaving the mother fucking Fascist States of America forever. I'll watch this shit show collapse from overseas and laugh whilst doing it.

And for the rest, Caesar giveth as he taketh away. The quickest path to money and power in a fascist empire is in the service of that fascist empire. Murder, torture, spy on the enemies of the fascist empire and be rewarded. What you don't seem to realize is that this fascist American empire can take everything from you, even your life. It doesn't matter whether they gave it to you or not.

And it's all nice and legal. Even blowing up your mother fucking house while you and your family are asleep. Nice and legal.

The precursors to insurance companies and medical plans - 'mutual aid societies' - were formed by workers to help those who were injured or in need of help. You paid into these groups and received benefits when you needed them. HOWEVER - you would NOT receive any bnenefits if injuries were incurred through drunkenness or otherwise irresponsible behavior. If you led a responsible life, you would be helped when you needed it BUT if you were irresponsible and brought misfortune on yourself, you were on your own.

While I believe there should be a minimum 'safety net' I think ther SHOULD be limits on government aid. Our priorities are misplpaced. We have seniors who have cafe they never would have gotten on their own - yet they demand even more, even if it deprives children of basic care. We have people who not taken any personal responsibility for their lives or behavior EXPECTING - indeed DEMANDING that government take care of them.

I saw Medicare paying for replacement knees given to people so obese they needed double wide wheelchairs - people who REFUSED to even try the therapy NECESSSARY to make those replacement knees usable and functional. They needed new knees BECAUSE they were morbidly obese - NOT because they had worked hard and worn out the knees they were born with. Government was paying full freight for their care. care many would not have been able to afford otherwise. That money would have been better spent on those who had worn out their bodies and twere willing to do the work necessary to make use of the repairs done. - or better yet, spend it on care for children - our 'future'. I've worked in factories with people 'getting by' - pepople who NEEDED real attention and could have used a knee replacemtn or somethinelse (hell, even a visit to the dentist) who couldn't afford to do what was needed - but their taxes (and yours and mine) were paying for 'Little Rascal scooters for retirees in Florida and any medical care they needed.

I have a mentally lill relative who has been given a fully subsidized life by his parents - who was bought a place to live and given enough moeny to live out his life after they died. His conditionis treatable with meds - he refuses to stay in treatment. At this point he is now collectking SS disability - after his employer tired of his behavior and refusal to stay under a doctor's care. He's never had to worry about paying a bill in his whole life - and was collecting coins while his siblings were working their butts off paying off student loans and carrying their own weight in life.

If the money is ther it WILL get spent. My mother had a far longer death than she should have had because she had good medical coverage. The hospital drew out her death - putting her on a respirator (despite specific orders NOT to do so) and keeping her alive long enough to collect a few hundred thousand dollars for weeks of unwantd care when all she wanted to do was die. My father - who was on dialysis for a few years - suffering form many things - finally said 'enough' and chose to die on his terms instead of having a slow drawn out death. Yet we spend a fortune adding a few weeks or days to the lives of people who have lived full lives. Why SHOULD we do 'everything possible' to rpolong the life of a 75 or 85 yeara old when we have children who haven't seen a doctor in years and people working f/t who can't afford to go to the dentist.

A neighbor's father - in his mid 80's - owns two homes, was complaining he couldn't sell his 30 foot boat - but was getting a Medicare paid for hip replacement of his originally Medicare paid for hip replacement.....

All the Socialist Centralists ever saw was the amount of electoral success they could buy and state control over the saps who pay for it all. And they could guilt them with the media into eating the shit sandwich and begging for more if they only got a taste of the graft and corruption.

Now, the bill is due, the suckers are barely complacent and more are figuring out the problem every day. Oh, what to do? Heath care, tailor made for mass control and euthanasia of the non-compliant.

What I'd like to know is why the huge push against smoking? Fukushima isn't a problem, GMOs are good for you, pink slime served in the schools, Vaccines and chemotherapy and aspartame are safe ffs. But tobacco is the be all end all evil. You'd think with smokers paying more taxes (~$8/pack) and dead sooner so no burden on the system (health care, pensions) they wouldn't put on such an all out campaign but they do. Why???

Because there are lots of benefits to smoking. One is that it makes you more alert, helps you concentrate, and relaxes you. Also, people who quite smoking almost instantly begin to have health problems. One obvious reason is that people who quite smoking seem to gain at least a good ten pounds. The more overweight you are, the more health issues you tend to have. Put this together and what do you get? A dumbdowned, docile, nervous pig that is ready to be slaughtered at the hospital bed!

Because the smoking cessation products sold by Big Pharma claw in massive profits. At the same time governments around the world chip in with expensive anti-smoking campaigns/crusades to demonize the evil smoker on the order of said pharma companies who blackmail them with threats of another swine/avian/monkey/llama/elephant/aardvark influenza epidemic if they don't comply.

Why Would the government ever cut services to parasites when the provider class is brain dead and politically inept and incapable of righting the system thru the electoral system? They will just print money and the stupid motherfuckers in the US will take it in the ASS because they know the Gubment will silence their dissent with more promises of skittles, Unicorns and Rainbows. People allow them to print their way out of every tight spot in the name of Patriotism or whatever the scam of the day is.....Fact is, If the Brain dead populace would wake up out of their government induced haze and realize the politicos are bribing them with their own money and enslaving them with their own money, this shit would have been over with a long time ago and we would have hung politicians and bankers years ago. Here is the deal, politicos only create fantasy....Real hard working Individuals create value, whether it be a Joe six pack machining parts on a laithe or Johnny paycheck driving a truck to bring goods to market. The Politico/bureaucrat class needs to die a very necessary death. The parasites have killed the host and the host has bought every lie the Parasite has told them while sucking their blood, all the while thinking there is some sort of symbiosis taking place.... The fucking tick that is the Washington Bureaucrat needs to be popped and exterminated. What we need is sensible law that is adhered to above all else. Unless rule of law is restored and ALL people are held to the law of the land, we are doomed. The enshrinement of Business as the State (aka Fascism)also needs to be ended as well. Insurance companies should not be able to make a fucking law using their lobbyists that says..." you have to wear your seatbelt in your car" This is the a form of using the state to ensure a certain actuarial proffit margin on life insurance policies for the insurance industry rather than having them price risk at the real market rate. Ok so our businesses don't compete well with other Fascist govermnents of the world I.e China etc...So what!!!!! That's where you slap import tarrifs on Nations that don't want to play fair when it comes to trade. And if they wanna fuck with the USA than you send them a very serious message in the form of an Aircraft Carrier off their shore ready to firebomb the shit out of their nation. "Fair" in my mind is a very misused word. Fair is what two parties agree to in the end. If one wants to produce something cheaper than another there is nothing to stop them. They just need to be prepared for the economic reality that they may not be able to export it anywhere, which basically means they better be ready to consume their own product otherwise they just wasted a lot of resources for nothing.

Let's face it — you're a member of the working class. As a result, you don't have the education, upbringing, connections, manners, appearance, and good taste to ever become one of the elite. In fact, you'd probably need a book the size of the yellow pages to list all the unfair advantages the elite have over you. You still continue to believe all those silly fairy tales about "justice" and "equal opportunity". Of course, in a hierarchical social system like ours, there's never been much room at the top to begin with. But at least there's usually someone lower in the social hierarchy you can feel superior to and kick in the teeth once in a while. Even a dishwasher can easily find some poor slob further down in the pecking order to sneer and spit at. So be thankful for migrant workers, prostitutes, and homeless street people. Always remember that if everyone like you were economically secure and socially privileged, there would be no one left to fill all those boring, dangerous, low-paid jobs in our economy. And no one to fight wars or blindly follow orders in our totalitarian business institutions. And certainly no one to meekly go to their grave without having lived a full and creative life. So please, keep up the good work! You also probably don't have the same greedy, compulsive drive to possess wealth snd power. And even though you may sincerely want to change the way you live, you're also afraid of the very change you desire, thus keeping you and others like you in a nervous state of limbo. So you go through life mechanically playing your assigned social role, terrified what others would think should you ever dare to "break out of the mold." Naturally your leaders play you off against each other whenever it suits their purposes, high-waged workers against low-waged, union against agency temps, Black against White, male against female, british workers against Japanese against Mexican against.... they continually push your wages down by invoking "foreign competition," "the law of supply and demand," "national security," or "the bloated federal deficit." they throw you on the unemployed scrap heap if you step out of line or jeopardize their profits. And to give you an occasional break from the monotony of the daily economic blackmail, they allow you to participate in the stage-managed electoral shell games, better known as "elections." Happily, you haven't a clue as to what's really happening — instead, you blame "Asians," "Environmentalists," "Blacks," "Jews," "Chavs," and countless others for your troubled situation. Too many of you still embrace the "work ethic," even though most jobs in the economy degrade the environment, undermine your physical and emotional health, and basically suck your one and only life right out of you. Of course, life could be different. Society could be intelligently organized to meet the real needs of the general population. You and others like you could collectively fight to free yourselves from domination. But you don't know that. In fact, you can't even imagine that another way of life is possible. And that's probably the greatest, most significant achievement of our system — robbing you of your imagination, your creativity, your ability to think and act for yourself.

What most people don't realize is that our healthcare "system" is already showing the stress of being overburdened. One concrete example is the frequent drug shortages hospitals nationwide are now experiencing. Out of the last 16+ years, I have only seen drug shortages in the last 6-9 months. A variety of factors are in play. It's common to see patients in the hospital who are on disability who smoke, drink, do drugs, are obese, etc. These people consume tremendous amounts of resources. I have seen countless patients spend weeks out of the year, over many years, largely due to the fact that they continue to do the things that made them ill in the first place. The attitude most of them have is, "I'll do what I want, and when I'm broke, you fix me". They know the bill will never come, so they have little incentive to change their lifestyles. I have seen patients in the emergency room for std's, being drunk, and yes... foreign objects stuck in their rectums (very common) that they were unable to remove. In one night, I had three patients who were admitted with TBI's (traumatic brain injury) after getting drunk, and falling down. All of the examples I've listed are common. Include in this equation aging baby boomers, and you have a disaster. Resources will be stretched very thin. It's not if, but when. To the "cynical skeptic", if you fill out advance directives, none of what you mentioned regarding your mother should have been an issue. It's a legally binding document that expresses wishes for a patient's care. I can't recall an instance where family decisions regarding intubation, cpr, etc. for the pt were ignored based on physician, or hospital preference. For me, the future of healthcare is one of the 800lb gorillas in the room.

Oh, I've seen plenty of drug shortages in the past 16 years. In the late 90's while working in labor and delivery, we had fentanyl, IV ampicillin, and betamethasone in short supply all at the same time. Please note that these are all old drugs and cheaper than those that were still on patent. Obstetrics is an area that depends on older drugs since pregnancy is no time to be trying out new drugs and finding the unknown side effects.

The 'here I am, I'm fucked up (or I fucked up) now fix me" syndrome has long been the attitude of many frequent flyers in ERs, especially GOMERs. A 1978 book still worth reading because it has relevance for the structure of med school hierarchy and the attitude toward patients is "House of God", by Samuel Shem (pseudonym of Stephen Bergman). It's good reading for non-healthcare types as well. Learn the difference between a neuro bed height and an ortho bed height, and why you should care. My favorite House of God Laws are below.

The drug shortage is a whole different problem, and while it has happened in small clusters before I don't think we've ever been hit with such large and across the board shortages of critical drugs like we are now. The issues of contaminated products for IV/IM use combined with fake drugs packaged as the real thing are new, as are speculators who are buying up available product stock and reselling it at high prices to desperate hospitals.

Deciding whether to do brain scans on drunks who fall down and hit their heads and are found passed out vs. knocked unconscious will likely be a question in teaching hospitals for years. So long as we remain as highly litiginous as we are, we'll scan.

As for the foreign bodies in the rectums, well... you've got to look at that as part of the fun. Style points for the more creative objects, yeah?

Selected Laws of The House of God:

1. Gomers Don't Die.

4. If You Don't Take A Temperature, You Can't Find A Fever.

6. There Is No Body Cavity That Cannot Be Reached With A #14G Needle And A Good Strong Arm

13. The Delivery Of Good Medical Care Is To Do As Much Nothing As Possible.

I don't know about you guys, but I vote we pay for govt spending/oilby selling nuclear bombs to iran, we have so many just sitting around... you know collecting dust and shit.... they aint ever gona get used... might as well sell a few... its a win win if we sell Iran "the bomb", we get money/free oil, they get to unite the middle east for us............ we wouldn't even have to be held responsible...... and worst case we can deny the whole thing like we did with sadam .... and blame it on them.

Anybody with lung cancer should buy a guy and take out at least one doctor and politician.
Politicians made it able to buy cigarettes. They made money on it.
Doctors are bound to help everybody by their oath.
So if they want to let them die, they should go with them to the afterlife.

1. You better take care of yourself, nobody else will!
2. You pay taxes so other people can take care of themselves.
3. Everybody that looks different is evil.
4. Any religion that isn't theirs is evil And should die.
5. THIS IS THE WEST! YOU LIVE AND DIE AT THE BAREL OF YOUR GUN!

We are not 98% dependent on it - we CHOOSE to use the service as we've already paid for it and it's often as good as private healthcare.

This idea that we're all dependent on the state is a right wing conspiracy theory - it's utter bullshit. They think that being in the hands of a private wealthy individual (private healthcare) is better and you are more protected - than a state owned system where the state is elected by the people (not just by the rich who can pay for it)

In the authors little world - I'm sure you would have to pay to vote. Those without - get no say - such is the ethos behind "letting the market decide"

I also noticed the author reported on the stopping of care to smokers - an idea banded about for years - but this would never go ahead unless the TOBBACCO INDUSTRY were made to PAY FOR THEIR IMMORAL AND ILLEGAL ADVERTISING - which encourages many people to start smoking in the first place.

....another example of the 'private sector' creating a mess - and then expecting the consumer to PAY AGAIN to clean it up.

Don't forget, adverts like this were accepted - until the 'nasty Government' stepped in an regulated the free (and presumably innocent) market of the lovely tobbacco firms - who didn't put back into society - but rather bought yachts abroad.

So I woujld suggest - in the case of NEEDS - the author can stick the free market up his ASS.

This is not Communist Russia - this is Government filling the gap which the private sector FAILS to fills - mainly because people don't like their misfortune with health to be exploited by rich man - like William Morris.

Should doctors deny a lung transplant to a 3 pack a day smoker who refuses to quit smoking? I don't have a problem with that if lungs are in short supply and medical reosurces too. Society is better served by giving the lung to a patient likely to live longer and I'm sure the donor would prefer that too.

This freedom rant crap is really getting old. Take a straw man, knock it down and stand around crowing like a rooster. Pretty childish if you ask me.

Jesus in Revelation 13:17 warns of a world system that coerces people to accept its power under the threat of making them economic outlaws. So a time is coming when government has sufficient control over the real-time or near real-time use of money that it can decide who is allowed to use money and who is not. A lot of people will agree to anything rather than face such sanctions and being thrown into the world of the homeless.

Gucci Gucci Bags Outlet is the biggest-selling Italian brand.Will the Gucci Bags 2012 hobo be making a comeback for spring? If Gucci has anything to say about it, the answer is “yes.” Gucci Men AND Ladylike satchels and small crossbody bags have been the currency of the accessories industry for the past several seasons, so much so that Gucci Spring 2012's Gucci Sunglasses 2012 stable of chain-strapped hobos was more than a little surprising to see.Brand New Gucci Shoes Sale!2011 Style gucci outlet,60% OFF.